Darn reality!

The government decides to try to increase the middle class by subsidizing things that middle class people have: If middle-class people go to college and own homes, then surely if more people go to college and own homes, well have more middle-class people. But homeownership and college arent causes of middle-class status, theyre markers for possessing the kinds of traits  self-discipline, the ability to defer gratification, etc.  that let you enter, and stay, in the middle class. Subsidizing the markers doesnt produce the traits; if anything, it undermines them.

Click to expand...

Reynolds Law thus strikes at the heart of progressivism as a political ideology. Progressivism cant deliver on its central promise. In fact, its guaranteed to make things worse in exactly that respect. Its not that it sacrifices some degree of one good (liberty or prosperity, say) to achieve a greater degree of another (equality). That suggests that the choice between conservatism and progressivism is a matter of tradeoffs, balances, and maybe even taste. Reynolds Law implies that progressivism sacrifices some (actually considerable) degrees of liberty and prosperity to move us away from equality by undermining the characters and thus behavior patterns of those they promise to help.

I think it's typical that the neo-Conservative will only embrace things if they are delivered in the simplest of terms. That is how I see your Reynolds Law. It is also completely inaccurate in describing the modern progressive agenda, which is less to do about giving people middle class status and more about assuring that they at least have the opportunity of obtaining that status.

Don't worry. America is quickly becoming third world because that is the way of conservatism.

Click to expand...

Consevatives are leading America to a third world status?

Conservatives are dragging their feet, but they are following the liberals.

We are not failing because we don't tax enough or spend enough on our poor. We are failing because we give to much away. Which is primarily liberal but conservatives don't mind giving away to get votes.

We provide support to over 50% of our people, and demand the people that earn the majority of money pay more to those that don't earn money at all.

We promise people that don't pay taxes to give them a portion of money from people that do to get them to vote for the people running our country into the ground.

Conservatives want to cut spending? No, Conservatives want to decrease the rate of growth, basically they want to slow our dive into the abyss.

Liberals want to increase taxes so they can give away more, but not make any meaningful cuts. If they agree to any cuts they will be basically slowing the dive into abyss too.

The people demand more handouts, the politicians offer more handouts to get votes, the debt always gets bigger and the politician that speaks of reason and reducing handouts can't win.

When you can vote for Santa or reason, people will go with Santa, even though Santa can't continue to give everything away.

People seek out shelters and off shore accounts so their money is safe from politicans hands. The more you take from someone able to take their money and leave, the more incentive to leave.
When the rich leave who will make the payment on the debt? The higher middle class, when they leave or become middle class, who pays next?
Mid-middle class.

Sharing the wealth doesn't mean lifting everyone up, it means dragging everyone down to the same level.

Reality means living with in your means, not borrowing from the bank of China to make our welfare recipients happy.

Class warfare just hides the inevidable reality, someone has to pay the bill. You take more from the rich, you take more from investments, which means less money to expand, less expansion means unemployment remains high.

Until we stop electing Santa elephant or Santa a...Donkey, we will not reform. The two will fight to be the best Santa while dropping a few coins to say they made cuts.
The voters that pay for the benefits are out numbered by the ones that get the benefits, which means the non-earners get to say how much they get to take from the earners. Who cares if we raise taxes, we don't pay taxes. We need more money to live on, so take more from those that make money or just borrow it.

Yep. It is obvious the way in which the conservatives want to lead the country. It will be the haves and the have nots. The intolerance for the poor is apparent.

Click to expand...

...only [repeat] the conservatives aren't in charge - progressives are - hence any trends towards third world status are purely a function of their success - and their wholly visible intolerance for the poor.

...only [repeat] the conservatives aren't in charge - progressives are - hence any trends towards third world status are purely a function of their success - and their wholly visible intolerance for the poor.

...only [repeat] the conservatives aren't in charge - progressives are - hence any trends towards third world status are purely a function of their success - and their wholly visible intolerance for the poor.

Click to expand...

Because the economic collapse which pushed our descent into overdrive happened under the progressive George Bush, who had a Republican congress for 6 years...

...only [repeat] the conservatives aren't in charge - progressives are - hence any trends towards third world status are purely a function of their success - and their wholly visible intolerance for the poor.

Click to expand...

The conservatives still run the House, and as anyone who does read the papers (or ever took Freshman Civics) knows, without the House nothing happens.

The biggest problem is that neither side has the brass to do what's best for our nation, and the President is too afraid he'll look bad. Wouldn't want that legacy tarnished would we?

The first President Bush raised taxes as a Republican President, and that's why Clinton gets all the credit for the economy. He commited political suicide by doing it, but he knew what was best for the nation.

As a whole, no one wants to give up money and everyone wants something. Until people make a sacrifice, to include politicians, our nation is going to continue to tailspin. As the saying goes, you can't make an omelet without cracking a few eggs.

It helps to follow the conversation a tad rather than eavesdrop on a single post before commenting.

Click to expand...

I agree, it would be nice if you would do that rather than take cheap shots at other posters-the converstaion is who is running things, and through congressional leadership and filibuster the Conservatives have been running things for the past 30 years. That's why everything is a mess.

The biggest problem is that neither side has the brass to do what's best for our nation, and the President is too afraid he'll look bad. Wouldn't want that legacy tarnished would we?

The first President Bush raised taxes as a Republican President, and that's why Clinton gets all the credit for the economy. He commited political suicide by doing it, but he knew what was best for the nation.

As a whole, no one wants to give up money and everyone wants something. Until people make a sacrifice, to include politicians, our nation is going to continue to tailspin. As the saying goes, you can't make an omelet without cracking a few eggs.